Standard of Care CASES
In English negligence law, standard of care is the objective measure of the caution and skill expected in the circumstances—what a reasonable person (or professional) would do.
Definition and principles
The test is objective and context-sensitive. Key factors include the probability of harm, seriousness of potential injury, cost and practicality of precautions, and the social utility of the activity. Compliance with regulations or industry codes is persuasive but not conclusive. For professionals, the standard is judged by a responsible body of opinion that withstands logical analysis. Learners are held to the competent standard of the role; children are measured against a reasonable child of similar age.
Common examples
- Driver fails to adjust speed and lookout in heavy rain, causing a collision.
- Hospital adopts a technique supported by responsible medical opinion—no breach unless the opinion is illogical.
- Employer omits simple, low-cost safeguards despite a foreseeable risk of injury.
- Sports participant commits a reckless tackle well beyond what the game reasonably contemplates.
Legal implications
- Breach is assessed against the standard; expert evidence is typical in professional cases.
- Statutory or regulatory breach is evidence of negligence, not automatic liability.
- Contributory negligence may reduce damages where the claimant fell below their own reasonable standard.
- In clinical negligence, risk disclosure duties are analysed distinctly from pure treatment skill.
Practical importance
Early focus on hazards, risk assessments, training records, and feasible precautions sharpens breach analysis, expert instructions, and settlement strategy.
See also: Duty of care; Breach; Professional negligence; Risk assessment; Contributory negligence; Causation; Remoteness.
Home » Standard of Care
A firefighter was injured by unsecured equipment in a vehicle responding to an emergency. The court held the employer was not liable, as the urgent need to save a life justified a greater risk than in a commercial setting. This case established the importance of 'social utility' in assessing the standard of care in negligence. Facts A woman was trapped under a heavy lorry following an accident. The fire station, run by the defendants, Hertfordshire County Council, was called to the scene. This required the use of a heavy lifting jack. The specific vehicle designed to carry this jack was
A patient suffered fractures during electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and sued for negligence. The court found the hospital was not liable as the doctors followed a procedure accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion. This case established the 'Bolam test' for professional negligence. Facts The claimant, John Hector Bolam, was a voluntary patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution managed by the defendants. He was suffering from depression and agreed to undergo electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). During the procedure, Mr Bolam was not administered any muscle relaxant drugs, nor was he physically restrained, apart from a nurse supporting his shoulders
Two claimants were paralysed by a spinal anaesthetic contaminated by phenol which seeped through invisible cracks in glass ampoules. The court ruled the hospital was not negligent as this risk was unforeseeable in 1947, establishing that conduct is judged by contemporaneous knowledge, not hindsight. Facts In October 1947, two separate claimants, Mr Roe and Mr Woolley, underwent minor operations at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital. Both were administered a spinal anaesthetic by a specialist anaesthetist, Dr Graham. The anaesthetic, nupercaine, was stored in sealed glass ampoules. To ensure sterility, these ampoules were kept submerged in a solution of
A one-eyed mechanic was blinded in his remaining good eye while working. The House of Lords held his employer, Stepney Borough Council, was negligent for not providing safety goggles, establishing that the duty of care must consider the employee's particular vulnerability. Facts The appellant, Mr Paris, was employed by the respondent, Stepney Borough Council, as a garage hand. It was known to his employers that he only had sight in one eye, having lost the other in a war injury. While engaged in maintenance work on a vehicle, he used a hammer to knock out a rusted U-bolt. A chip
A learner driver injured her instructor in an accident. The court held that the learner must be judged by the same objective standard of care as a reasonably competent and qualified driver, not a lower standard reflecting her inexperience. This established a uniform standard. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Nettleship, agreed to give driving lessons to his friend’s wife, the defendant, Mrs Weston. Before doing so, he enquired about her insurance coverage and was assured that she was covered by a fully comprehensive policy. On the third lesson, while executing a simple manoeuvre, Mrs Weston panicked. She failed to straighten the
A 15-year-old pupil was injured after hitting his head on an unpadded goal post during a school rugby match. The court held the school was not negligent, finding the risk of such an injury was minimal and did not breach its duty of care. Facts The claimant, David Lawrence, was a 15-year-old pupil who sustained a serious head injury on 21 March 2001 while playing in a school rugby match for Ysgol y Preseli. The match was organised and supervised by the defendant, Pembrokeshire County Council, which was responsible for the school. The claimant, playing as outside centre, attempted to
A tea room manager allowed a church group to bring in a large tea urn, which was subsequently spilt, scalding a child. The House of Lords held the manager was not negligent as the accident was not reasonably foreseeable. Facts The appellants, Glasgow Corporation, managed a public tea room in King’s Park, Glasgow. During a period of heavy rain, the manager, Mrs Alexander, gave permission for a church picnic party of about 30-40 people, mostly children, to take shelter in the tea room and use it to consume their own food and tea. Two members of the picnic party, Mr
A claimant was struck by a cricket ball hit out of a ground. This was a rare occurrence. The House of Lords held the club was not negligent as the risk of injury, while foreseeable, was too small for a reasonable person to guard against. Facts The respondent, Miss Stone, was standing on a public highway adjacent to a cricket ground when she was struck and injured by a cricket ball. The ball had been hit by a batsman from the pitch, travelling approximately 100 yards and clearing a 7-foot fence. Due to the slope of the ground, the top
A doctor failed to attend a two-year-old child in respiratory distress who later died. The House of Lords clarified the Bolam test, ruling that a court can find a doctor negligent if their supporting expert opinion is not logically defensible. Facts Patrick Bolitho, a two-year-old child, was admitted to hospital suffering from croup. He was looked after by two nurses and was under the care of a senior paediatric registrar, Dr. Horn. On two separate occasions, Patrick suffered brief episodes of respiratory distress from which he appeared to recover. On both occasions, the nurses telephoned Dr. Horn, who did not
A water main, installed by the defendants, burst during an unprecedentedly severe frost, damaging the claimant's house. The court found the water company was not negligent as they could not have reasonably foreseen such an extreme event, establishing the 'reasonable person' standard. Facts The defendants, a waterworks company, installed a fire-plug in a street in Birmingham in accordance with the requirements of its Act of Parliament. The fire-plug had worked correctly and without issue for twenty-five years. However, during the winter of 1855, an exceptionally severe and unprecedented frost occurred. This frost penetrated the ground to a greater depth than
